3/26/12 Cases 2011-2012 Term Supreme Court

Click the links below to check out all the briefs, and other legal papers pertaining to each case.

Merit Briefs,  Amicus Briefs (In Support of Respondents, In Support of Petitioner),  Other

Legal briefs are used as part of arguing a pre-trial motion in a case or proceeding.

Merit briefs (or briefs on the merits) refers to briefs on the inherent rights and wrongs of a case, absent any emotional or technical biases

Amicus briefs refer to briefs filed by persons not directly party to the case. These are often groups that have a direct interest in the outcome.

Amicus curiae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court".



 Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, Docket No., 11-398 (Minimum Coverage Provision)

 Argument Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Questions Presented

Beginning in 2014, the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029, will require non-exempted individuals to maintain a minimum level of health insurance or pay a tax penalty. 26 U.S.C.A. 5000A.
The question presented is:
1. Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision.

Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Florida, Docket No., 11-398 (Anti-Injunction Act)

Argument Date: Monday, March 26, 2012

Questions Presented

Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provisions of the Patent Protection and Affordable Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act 26 U.S.C. §7421(A)


National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Docket No., 11-393,
and
Florida v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Docket No., 11-400 (Severability)

Argument Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Questions Presented in Severability

Congress effected a sweeping and comprehensive restructuring of the Nation's health-insurance markets in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 109 (2010) (collectively, the "ACA” or "Act"). But the Eleventh Circuit and the Sixth Circuit now have issued directly conflicting final judgments about the facial constitutionality of the ACA's mandate that virtually every individual American must obtain health insurance. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A. Moreover, despite the fact that the mandate is a "requirement" that Congress itself deemed "essential" to the Act's new insurance regulations, 42 U.S.C. § 18091(a)(2)(I), the Eleventh Circuit held that the mandate is severable from the remainder of the Act.
The question presented is whether the ACA must be invalidated in its entirety because it is non-severable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress' limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution.


Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, Docket No., 11-400 (Medicaid)

Argument Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Questions Presented

1. Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress's spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply?